First, Merry Christmas to all. May your entire holiday season be blessed.

I wanted to give you a little gift of Aramaic/Peshitta primacy in the text of Galatians 3:16. On the altar today, I listened to another Shamasha recite the reading from this passage today for Christmas service, and it dawned upon me at that moment, and I wanted to rush home and share this with you.

The evidence presented below consists of two parts: (1) a word-play in the Peshitta that is not present in the Greek (or, any other dialect of Aramaic), and (2) a really nice example showing that the Apostle Paul must have written this Epistle in Aramaic originally.

The Word Play

Nyd Mhrb0l - "For, to Abraham"

0nklwm Klmt0 - "was promised the promise"

The first word in the wordplay, Klmt0 ("eth-melek"), is the Eth-Peal form (meaning the passive "was") of the root "m-l-k", a root with the primary meaning in all Aramaic dialects of "to reign", however it has a secondary meaning in "Syriac" only, which is "to promise". I believe Akhan Steve Caruso refers to this type of anomaly as a "shibboleth" ... in this case, to "Syriac" only. (The word for "vow/promise" in western dialects is q-ts-y-ts-h.)

The second word in the wordplay, 0nklwm (mulkana) is a substantive noun derived from the same verbal root above (m-l-k), with all of the nuances and "shibboleth" status in "Syriac" (and no other Aramaic dialect). It is in the emphatic form - "THE Promise."

As you can imagine, the Greek has a different phrase altogether, using two different words meaning "mention/say" ("Lego") and "promise" ("Epaggelia"), so the word-play is not present as in the Aramaic "eth-melek mulkana", both words drawing and playing on the same Aramaic root m-l-k.

In the Greek Primacy scenario, it is next to impossible to imagine that an Aramaic translator of the Greek phrase "promise was spoken" would have chosen such a beautiful wordplay instead of any number of simple Aramaic phrases like "eth-mlel hwa mulkana" (was spoken), "eth-amr hwa mulkana" (was stated) or even "eth-yhb hwa mulkana" (was given). To use eth-melek, instead, showed a purposeful desire to create a word-play with "mulkana". A very odd, and very beautiful wordplay. One that is, no doubt, intentional.

In the Aramaic Primacy scenario, it is very easy to see how a Greek translator (like any English reader) would find the common Semitic structure of "promise a promise" rough enough to his target audience, to warrant a "smoothing out" of the word-play into a more eloquent Greek.

But, I saved the best part for last....

In the Aramaic, we continue:

h(rzlw ("and to his seed/s")

Let's pause here for a moment in order to explain a very important point. In Aramaic (as in Hebrew), the word for "seed" is "z-r-(-)". Adding the third-person possessive suffix replaces the final Aleph with a Heh, creating "z-r-(-h". The preceeding Waw and Lamed Enclitics "w-l", when combined and preceding a word, mean "and to", and can be disregarded for our discussion.

The reason I gave both the singular and the plural for "seed" in the translation above is because, as you may know, most nouns in Aramaic cannot be distinguished orthographically between the singular and the plural. That includes this noun in question - "seed". (The addition of Syame markings, which came later in the manuscript tradition, solved that problem. But, in Paul's time, the singular for "his seed" (in the third-person) and the plural (in the third-person) would look identical.)

Paul continues in the Aramaic and in the Greek text to explain the singular/plural problem he was addressing (and, indeed, building his case on), but in markedly different ways. And that is the key to why this is such an important example to present. Why they are different, and why the Greek must be a translation (because it is ridiculous to think otherwise, when you see how the translator did it.)

See, in Greek this is merely a theological question. In Aramaic, it is that and so much more. Because the very nature of the word he used forced the reader to contemplate what exactly was meant. The singular/plural problem Paul was addressing was not merely the orthography of the Aramaic word z-r-)-(, but also *who* was the inheritor/s of the "promise". Was it a whole people? Or was the prophecy fulfilled in one person? (Keep in mind that the same root, zeraa, is found in the Hebrew original to the promise in Genesis).

In fact, the Jews frequently used the singular vs. plural facet to an argument in many of their discourses/midrashes. So the methodology Paul was using here was very common to an argumentative old Jewish Rabbi that he was.

Here's where I get to the differences.

In the Aramaic, Paul continues and switches the possessive form from the 3rd-person (where it cannot be distinguished singular vs. plural) to the first-person (where they certainly can). The third-person "His seed/s" becomes "Your seeds, as in many" ("zar-ayk") and "Your seed, as in One, that is Messiah" ("zar-ak")

He made this switch from the third-person to the first-person, so that the reader could understand the previously ambiguous third-person singular/plural form. Absolutely brilliant, and it clears it up nicely for the reader.

Now, what did the Greek translator do?

Like the Aramaic, the Greek begins the passage in the 3rd-person. So the Greek word for "seed" there is spevrmati. However, and this is extremely important, the Greek singular and plural forms are readily distinguishable orthographically. In fact, the only place in the entire Scriptures where the plural form is found is in this verse (this is an important thing to keep in mind as you read on.) That form is: spevrmasin.

Here's the thing, though: The Greek translator doesn't immediately go into the 1st-person to explain this. In fact, he simply stays person-neutral and gives us a Greek lesson in Orthography for the plural by giving us this singular (and, awkward) usage of spevrmasin.

But, he does finally end in the 1st-person with, and here's the kicker - "your seed" which just so happens to be the very same word he started with - spevrmati.

So follow me here for the summary: in the Greek, we start off by reading that spevrmati is not spevrmasin, but it really is (in case you had any doubt) spevrmati.

Why would Paul state the obvious like that ? What sort of sense does that make ? It would be like me telling you:

"Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. Not sons, as in many. But, as in one. Your son. That is, Isaac."

Firstly, what would be the purpose of that? And why would anyone not see that this is a translation?

Secondly, the Greek translator showed us what the plural form was. If there were any question, Paul would not have started out with the singular in the Greek. The two forms are readily distinguishable.

In summary, I hope you all had a great holiday - please contemplate this and let me know, of course, of any thoughts. May God bless, and have a great New Year as well.

The first word in the wordplay, Klmt0 ("eth-melek"), is the Eth-Peal form (meaning the passive "was") of the root "m-l-k", a root with the primary meaning in all Aramaic dialects of "to reign", however it has a secondary meaning in "Syriac" only, which is "to promise". I believe Akhan Steve Caruso refers to this type of anomaly as a "shibboleth" ... in this case, to "Syriac" only. (The word for "vow/promise" in western dialects is q-ts-y-ts-h.)

Hi Paul,
It must have been here before on the forum, or otherwise I must have had a revelation <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> but I already had the wordplay in my translation by trying to imply the wordplay in it...

To Abrohom en his seed the promise [for a king] was promised.

Thanks for the additional insights!

B.t.w. the Greek and also the Dutch translation of Gal 3:16 in general makes no sense as an argument. Seed (in Dutch) nearly always is singular, just as 'coffee' is.

Why would Paul state the obvious like that ? What sort of sense does that make ? It would be like me telling you:

"Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. Not sons, as in many. But, as in one. Your son. That is, Isaac."

Firstly, what would be the purpose of that? And why would anyone not see that this is a translation?

Secondly, the Greek translator showed us what the plural form was. If there were any question, Paul would not have started out with the singular in the Greek. The two forms are readily distinguishable.

Hi Paul,

As a newbie, forgive me if I am not quite understanding this passage in the same way as you. The example above regarding 'sacrificing Isaac' is plain enough, and I have no problem with your reasoning here, but the verse in question is not so straight forward. One can imagine the normal interpretation of the promise as being understood in those days as relating to the nation - to the 'many'. Paul can be seen as explaining the promise in a way that would be a revelation to his readers - applying the promise in the singular, to Christ. He emphasizes the distinction. So, this argument, as far as I understand, is not in itself to me convincing. (Perhaps there are other illustrations that might cause me to reconsider.)

The second concern I have with your suggestion is with the needs of the target audience for the epistle. Galatia is far from the Aramaic speaking East. As we know, by the time of the Apostles, the LXX was commonly known and used across the Greek speaking Mediterranean world. Greek was the language of commerce and classical learning. Hebrew was read in the synagogues, but readers also gave translation and used the LXX. It seems doubtful to me that the epistles of Paul would have been addressed to Aramaic speakers, with the exception of Hebrews. He was the apostle to the Gentiles. He came from Tarsus and knew Greek perfectly well. It seems fairly logical, therefore, to assume that he would want to write mainly in Greek. Regarding the Gospels, that is another issue. Matthew would appear to have written in Aramaic (or Hebrew - as reported by later Church fathers). Mark and Luke, making use of this, could have translated and adapted their versions into the common Greek. So, for me, the original writings of the N.T. were both Aramaic and Greek, as far as I know. However, it seems clear that Paul made use of a Tanakh/ LXX version that was extant before Masoretic changes were made (in opposition to the Christian application of its Messianic passages). It is the Peshitta, I believe, that could preserve this original text.

I earnestly wish to learn more about the O.T. Peshitta for this reason. Nevertheless, I am also open to discovering more about the N.T. Peshitta - just not so convinced by the present post.